So You Really Disagree With Someone About Politics. Now What?

In a world where political conversations often seem to amplify division, Seth Freeman brought a refreshingly practical approach to engaging constructively with opposing views. Through a mix of research-based insights and hands-on exercises at a student workshop hosted by Jilliene Rodriguez, associate dean, diversity and community engagement, and SIPA’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Climate and Engagement (DEICE) Committee  on October 24, Freeman proposed strategies to transform disagreement into meaningful dialogue.

Freeman began with a reflection on a common misstep: arguing from one’s own values while neglecting the other person’s. “What we often forget,” he said, “is that their perspective is rooted in their values, which may differ profoundly from our own.”He added that this disconnect is often the source of unproductive arguments, noting that many liberals and conservatives often prioritize different principles—empathy and fairness with the former, loyalty and tradition on the latter. These differences in core values can play a crucial role in shaping political discussions.

To bridge the gap, Freeman offered two useful tools and examples to illustrate how they work. The first is an interest-based approach, framing arguments in a way that aligns with the other person’s values. For example, rather than advocating for environmental policies solely on the basis of ecological preservation, one might emphasize the economic benefits of clean energy or its role in national security. Conversely, rather than advocating for more military spending for national security, one might emphasize how it benefits the poor and the underprivileged. 

Freeman’s second tool addressed the power of language. Certain trigger words can evoke such strong emotions that they prevent meaningful dialogue. In discussions about abortion, for example, words like “fetus” or “unborn child” may provoke reactions that derail the conversation entirely. To avoid this, Freeman advised choosing language carefully to keep the conversation constructive and focused.

Freeman recommended a third strategy when conversations hit an impasse: paraphrasing. Asking the other person to restate your views after you’ve mirrored theirs ensures mutual understanding. “When you paraphrase, you show that you’re really listening and you validate the person (not necessarily the viewpoint), which gives them a gratifying experience,” he explained. “When you truthfully praise, you further demonstrate goodwill and humility, which is winsome and invites reciprocity. And when you probe, you open the door to an exploration rather than a heated argument.”

After the event, In a follow-up survey, students overwhelmingly said they would recommend the training to a friend (9.7/10). Seventy-six percent said they felt much more confident having political conversation, and 80 percent would find it substantially or much more persuasive if someone they disagreed with shared political views using the same approach.

As one student noted in the survey, "I learned how to lead better conversations with people sharing different values and beliefs," emphasizing the importance of understanding diverse perspectives. Another student remarked on the transformative power of empathy, reflecting, "It’s surprising how easy it is to moderate your own views when you put yourself in another’s shoes."